The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Californian body
effectively responsible for all internet domains, is no longer a
fit and proper parent. On behalf of all of us who ever use the
internet, I call for adoption papers urgently to be drawn up before
our collective child is further damaged by a self-regarding body
whose arrogance, conflicts of interest, greed and mismanagement
would be laughable were ICANN not a monopoly.

Let me tell you why. From 12 January, ICANN is offering
"entrepreneurs, businesses, governments and communities around the
world" a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity: the chance to bid for
their own internet suffix in place of the .com or .net at the end of a
domain. The new suffixes -- .wired, say, or .kernel -- are called
generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), and according to ICANN they
"pave the way for increased consumer choice by facilitating
competition among registry service providers".

All you need do is hand over an "evaluation fee" of a mere
$185,000 (£120,000) for each suffix (so .kernel and .thekernel
would together be $370,000, or £240,000). The fee is fully
non-refundable if you're turned down, of course, and excludes your
legal costs.

ICANN president Rod Beckstrom calls the new fundraising
initiative "the most significant opening in the history of the
domain name system". He also calls it an "innovation". For sure,
there will be benefits for those who seek non-Latin or non-ASCII
domains, which will be on offer.

But those former ICANN executives I've spoken to are outraged
that the body they once held dear is pursuing what they see as a
coldly greedy strategy that will confuse consumers,
encourage cybersquatting,
and serve the interests of those who profit from domain name
registration.

And it's not as if there's a hunger among the corporate world to
extend top-level domains in this way. In fact, last November, the
US Association of National Advertisers sent a petition to the US
commerce secretary, John Bryson, expressing "strong concern" about
ICANN's entire process. "ICANN's action was taken despite
widespread and significant objections raised throughout the process
by many in the global community of internet users," the petition
stated.

"ICANN's decision was not made in the public interest, does not
promote consumer trust, and does not benefit the public, as
required in the Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN and the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA)."

It also pointed to "troubling conflict of interest questions --
which cast a shadow over the entire process leading up to ICANN's
decision".

To allow the plan to be implemented would be unwise, the
petition said, "given its undisputed costs and its merely putative
benefits. The ICANN proposal would unduly burden a diverse range of
public and private brand holders, as they would be forced to spend
ever-greater amounts of time and resources simply to protect their
brands.

"In addition, there is an unacceptably high risk that the ICANN
plan would confuse consumers, increase the already unacceptable
level of fraud and identity theft on the internet, create new
opportunities for Internet crime, and jeopardize cyber
security."

Last week, Lawrence Strickling, administrator of the US Commerce
Department's National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, wrote to ICANN imploring it to minimise the need
for companies to register these domain names merely to protect
themselves from others buying them.

"In meetings we have held with industry over the past weeks,"
Strickling wrote, "we have learned that there is tremendous concern
about the specifics of the program that may lead to a number of
unintended and unforeseen consequences and could jeopardize its
success." ICANN ploughed ahead.

And in December, the US Federal Trade Commission chairman, Jon
Leibowitz, said that implementing the programme could be a
"disaster" for consumers. ICANN ploughed ahead.

Then the US National Retail Federation, a trade body, recently
wrote to Congress condemning the lack of transparency in the
programme, and its huge potential cost. ICANN… well, you know
the score by now.

Comments

Good article ... laying out the attitude and "stand to profit" connections of this rip off ICANN rape of the internet .... $185k per domain? Why? What is their cost to production and services rendereed justification? And in the middle of one of the worst world economies since the Great Depression - the arrogance of the rich and have's is unimaginable until it is compared to the same which was found in the old Kings, Queens and land barons before they "bit the dust" before the working class started their own forms of gov - maybe it's time again?

rm

Jan 12th 2012

"The petition's signatories? Eighty corporations and trade associations including Adobe Systems Incorporated, American Express, Burger King Corporation, The Coca-Cola Company, Dell Inc., Ford Motor Company, General Electric Company, Hewlett-Packard Company, Johnson &amp; Johnson, Kellogg Company, Nestle USA, Procter &amp; Gamble, Publicis Groupe and many more":of course the logic question to ask is, what have these companies to gain from opposing ICANNs plans? Surely no one is so naive as to assume that they suddenly are working for the greater good of mankind? These companies only out themselves if there is something to be gained by it.I am not qualified to judge what that may be, but I am pretty sure it is in their own interest, not in that of society as a whole.So I invite readers to further investigate that angle, instead of just parrotting the editor's words..